Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Zireael]

Members of some classes tend to be better at certain types of activities than members of other classes. So for example:

Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
Cleric classes tend to be better at receiving divine aid than others.
Fighter classes tend to be better at the use of unusual melee weapons than others.

Having magic items which work better for those who are better at doing the sorts of things those items help with, makes sense to me.

So for example:

"Elvish Boots: When worn, rogues gain expertise in Dex (move silent) checks, others gain skill proficiency in such checks."
"Wand of Eldritch Rays: Fires a ray of energy at a target within 25', doing 1d6 damage, or 2d6 if fired by a Mage."
"Rod of Healing: This rod heals 1d6 hit points of damage to a target within 25", or 2d6 damage if used by a Cleric."
"Staggering Maul +1: This Maul deals 2d6+1 bludgeoning damage. Targets struck must succeed on a DC15 Constitution save or else are Restrained for 1 round. Fighters wielding this weapon may choose to Stun targets rather than restrain them."

In all of these examples, the item is usable by anyone, but it works better if used by a particular class which is naturally better at the sorts of things that item does.

This is a very good idea.

 

[Bluenose]

Agreed. Or rather, to the extent that it did exist, it is the same archetype as the paladin, namely, the holy warrior. And being a holy warrior isn't something you train for - the gods bestow vocations upon their chosen vessels.

Well, partly. There's another type of holy magician that does study and perform magic invoking their chosen deity, generally mystical sects. The practice is widespread even in the Abrahamic faiths, perhaps especially in the Abrahamic faiths. A Catholic priest performing an exorcism is practising magic in a ritual form learnt from books, as is a Jewish Kabbalist using the Seal of Solomon for protection from possession. On the other hand, they're not typically warriors in any way, very unlike the D&D Cleric/Druid/Priset. And I'll note a persistent insistence by the practitioners that they're performing "miracles" rather than "magic".

 

[Cyberen]

We all agree, I presume, that Basic D&D should present the Big Four as Class choice and nothing more.
At the end of the spectrum, enlightened groups should have the choice between :
* a toolkit including many fiddly bits, almost point-based chargen.
* a toolkit permitting to tailor custom classes, fulfilling individual and group (genre) expectations.
Those 2 traditions have both their merits and supporters, and I believe Next should serve them both (obviously not at the same time !)
Perhaps Class groups could facilitate the transition (enlightenment)between the base and the full custom version.
I would add that I was, and always had been, very skeptical of the Paladin class... until the September version which knocked me off of my feet with its awesomeness. So I don't really believe anymore in theoretical class delineation talking...

 

[Wicht]

And I would argue that the D&D cleric archetype is probably one of the few archetypes that mostly didn't exist pre-D&D.

I've always felt weird with the cleric class because I believe, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentions, that gods should answer people's prayers if it strikes their fancy: if Athena finds that Odysseus is a Hero that advances her ideals, she'll help him directly and indirectly regardless of the fact that Odysseus is (not) one of her priests.

Eh, its a conflation of two different archetypes actually: the prophets of Jewish and Christian scripture, and the holy warriors of the medieval catholic church. The "spells" of the cleric are very much modeled on many of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments with a slight gamist twist to make it fit the game.

 

[Herschel]

I so, so disagree. "Tricksters" are people who trick people. "Experts" are experts at something. The former is obviously not what these people always are. The latter is. Go Expert over Trickster.

So they're more learned in magic than Wizards? Experts is a moronic name, that's more for things like sages and the like because each class would be the "experts" in their fields over the "rogue-ish". Trickster is merely horrible, it doesn't claim/imply superior knowledge over more actually learned characters.

Dabbler would be a better term even.

 

[Wicht]

Not all of them. IIRC, potions of heroism, superheroism, invulnerability, and Giant strength only work for fighters.

I truly did not remember that. I had to go back and recheck the DM's Guide but you are right. They do say fighter only. My bad. I notice that 2e changed this up in a few of them, like Giant Strength, and I must confess I don't actually remember ever using the rules as written and must assume (though memory of 1e is hazy) that we houseruled those fighter only potions to work on everyone.

I still hold its bad design, but I admit that Gygax, much as I appreciate his work, did indeed do thus.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So they're more learned in magic than Wizards?

Potentially academically, I would imagine. I could see them saying "magic works this way" better than a Wizard could, they just can't cast spells as well.

Experts is a moronic name, that's more for things like sages and the like because each class would be the "experts" in their fields over the "rogue-ish".

At least "expert" would mean "expert at something." Trickster means "tricks people." That's not at all what they're trying to get across, though. That's what makes "trickster" such a bad name.

Trickster is merely horrible, it doesn't claim/imply superior knowledge over more actually learned characters.

They might actually have more knowledge about certain things, though, couldn't they? I'm not super up-to-date on 5e skills at all. It's changed too much, and I don't have the latest packet, and this new L&L only muddies the waters more for me.

Dabbler would be a better term even.

I don't much like it. Maybe "specialist" or something. But even "dabbler" is better than "trickster", which is truly, utterly terrible, as it doesn't represent what they're going for at all.

 

[Wicht]

Third, in Tolkien a hobbit can't use the Palantir - all Pippin does is trigger the curse and get his mind temporarily blasted by Sauron - so why should s/he be able to in the game, if fidelity to genre is what we're after. Even Gandalf couldn't use the Palantir safely (as Saruman's experience revealed) - Denethor was better at it than Saruman, but Aragorn was the true wielder (hence the ability of 10th level rangers in Gygaxian AD&D to use crystal balls!).

Its off topic, but I have to dispute your interpretation of the text. Pippin very much activates the magic item. But he lacked the ability to counteract the will of Sauron who had full control of the Palantir. The items weren't cursed as such, they were merely under the power of the evil of the age.

Gandalf could have used the Palantir but he did not want to place himself in a contest with Sauron on that particular field. His humility prevented him from taking the chance. It was not a matter of power but of caution, caution which Aragorn forswore when he pitted himself against Sauron in a battle of wills.

All of this plays out to a particular theme of Lord of the Rings: that the ability to do something is not equal to the right or wisdom of doing a thing.

But anyone, regardless of class, could activate the Palantir: we have example of a hobbit, a nobleman, a ranger and a wizard all using the same item. Likewise, the rings of power would operate for anyone, but if you lacked the will to fully control them, then the results were suboptimal.

 

[steeldragons]

Rogue. Call 'em Rogues. Fills your ragamuffins and urchin pickpockets, your burglars and treasure-hunting explorers, your cads and rakes and scoundrels, your acrobats and jesters, your spies and scouts, your malcontents and loners, the stealthy, the speedy and the secret, fits the "jacks-of-all-trades" of bards and rangers and/or the specific skills of monks and mariners.

"Trickster" doesn't do this. "Expert", really, doesn't do this. "Explorer" doesn't do this.

There is absolutely no reason the class group should not be referred to as Rogue. They changed the class name from Thief to Rogue after more than half of the game's history (and iterations). What's the issue with changing it back?

 

[TrippyHippy]

The problem with 'Tricksters' as a name is just a microcosm of the overall problem: if you choose to over-categorise then you are just creating more issues for people to argue about.

Seriously, what real benefit is there to grouping Classes this way? Are people just addicted to arguing about what 'type' a Monk Class is or not? Or what names to give each group? Classes give us everything we need to know, and if there is a manageable core of them (about 10-12), and customisable options with sub-classes and backgrounds, etc, then why add a tertiary level of organization? Just for the sake of it, apparently.

Stick with 10 iconic Classes in the core (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard). Add more in supplements if you want (like having sorcery and witchcraft along with other magical styles saved for a magical option supplement). Break them down into sub-classes if you want. Leave the superfluous categorisation, of how each Class could be grouped, to each individual who likes to think about such things.